Into the ever-running discussion about quote whoring and film critics being influenced by studios comes Josh Ozersky, an online food critic for Time.com who had a parade of celebrity chefs cater his wedding, later writing, “There are restaurants all around New York City that are objects of my special passion
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
If it’s for a wedding and it’s a one time sort of thing then it’s perfectly ok.
(In fact, in my mind, it’s as it should be. It just seems right to me.)
Unless you have any real dish on this guy or can prove that he has a history of him being dishonest, complaining that a food critic accepted a gift of potenitally his favorite thing in the world as a gift on his WED-DING is even dumber than arguing that critics who review screeners shouldn’t be reviwing.
I couldn’t even finish Ozersky’s article to figure out whether he crossed the line or not because I just about wanted to vomit after reading the descriptions of HIS OWN WEDDING FOOD. Isn’t that some kind of food critic violation in itself, raving about the food at your own damn reception? Time magazine paid for this?
How do people like this guy continually have jobs? Seriously, someone answer that question because it astounds me that no matter where you look in the world, general incompetence is rewarded way too freaking much, and this dude is just a flacid schwantz of a human being. It’s not only way girlie to want your CHEF FRIENDS to make their food YOUR WEDDING GIFTS but that’s just dumb. You ask for freaking money! Asking for these chefs to feed people is just dumb. This guy deserve a boot to the ass right out the door.
“So here’s my advice to anyone who is starting to plan a wedding: Forget the caterer! Plug directly into the source of your hometown’s culinary delights, and happiness, enduring and radiant, will immediately follow. I’m still glowing, and my only regret is not getting to take any of the cake or lasagna home.”
I curse the invention of writing, words, verbal sounds, and hell, human procreation at this point. I curse you all.
Wow, Pete… your now-clear standards for journalism are quite a relief to me. I don’t ever have to take anything you write about me remotely seriously ever again.
In the increasingly cross-pollinated world of entertainment and journalism, I find it almost impossible to assume or believe that critics don’t get some amount of swag or “consideration” as they go about viewing (or in this guy’s case) consuming, and experiencing that and those they are writing about.
I just want disclosure.
And if I have been reading their writing for awhile then I’ll weigh it against what I think I know to be their tastes or inclination. And if it’s someone new (to me), then I’ll maybe balance their stated opinions with a grain of salt or two.
I wrestle with this myself going back and forth between doing PR for film festivals and films and then writing about other film festivals that I’m not working for. It’s delicate and tricky and nowhere close to being perfect but the hope is that by being completely up front about what I do that the reader can weigh it as they see fit and get whatever they can out of it. And anyone who has consistently read my writing or reviews knows that not everyone gets a “happy face” sticker from me.
But I feel this also reflects on that ongoing “Can you critique a film you did a set visit on?” issue that flares up in here every so often. And I also really have no problem with that either as long as I know it happened and the writer isn’t coy about the disclosure. Outlets and sites can’t always pay to send journalists out of town, that’s just the way it is.
But this guy doesn’t get it – can’t see the forest for his self-impressed taste buds (and chef buds). Besides that (judging from comments on both the original story and the calling out story), I believe the catering industry has a hit out on him now. Such is the price for glib dismissal of an entire group of professionals.
“his firing-worthy piece of unethical behavior by Ozersky”
Jesus. The food critic must pay.
I love Love LOVE that Time has closed comments on the article, and judging from the final post, did so five days before Mr. Sietsema’s article went up. It’s almost as if they anticipated how badly they were going to be called out on the article…
You know, Christian, that way lies “if everyone jumped off a bridge, would follow?”. If Time Magazine is indifferent to this kind of offense, which he would have been fired for by now in 2000, is there any outlet that will hold up ethical standards?
I wonder if this Sietsema is related to Tom Sietsema, food critic for the Washington Post.
You must buy a llooooottt of carrots and hay, DP.
I’m with Wildman; just say what you know, what you got, the relationship and move forward. But that NEVER HAPPENS in film writing and it’s such bullshit. There’s a billion examples of movies with super positive ratings and the same writer did a set visit. I *might* trust their review if they disclosed the visit but they never do and that just stinks of hands washing one another.
Worse is the little games these guys play on twitter. “Oh man, New Orleans again….just got in. Where my bloggers at?!?” Never saying WHY THEY ARE THERE. It makes the situation look shady, sneaky and smug even if it isn’t.
I am looking forward to taking the SCOTT PILGRIM group shot that was taken on a set-visit to that film and photoshopping whorish pull-quotes and sparkling ratings above each bloggers head. Finally, a visual representation!
Ethics are too old fashioned for you, J-Mc?
Says a lot.
“FUCK the 10 Commandments!!! It’s OLD!”
Don – seems to me that’s par for the course. Set visits are usually embargoed, and the Twitter messages are to try and connect with folks who are actually there without violating said embargo.
It’s like at SXSW, everyone was tweeting where they were and trying to connect, and this tended to bug the shit out of everyone who wasn’t there.
No, seriously, fuck the ten commandments. They’re old.
Only a Canadian could make such a callus statement. Godless country up north there.
Seriously, not all of the ten commandments are relevant any more…for example, when was the last time anybody other than an Orthodox Jew kept holy the Sabbath Day?
I never ever take the Sabbath for granted. Especially after GOD informed me that I would be better served to listen to Chris Berman than going to church. For the Berman and the Tom Jackson are holy.
Is it unethical to blaspheme the Lord if you’re an atheist?
Is it unethical to sleep with another woman if you’re in an open relationship?
Is it unethical to dishonor your parents if they abandoned you?
Is it unethical to post on your blog on the sabbath day
George Carlin had a good bit about how the ten commandments should only be 2 and a half (and he’s not Canadian).
Yet more random facts:
There are actually 613 commandments in the bible – many of which are conveniently ignored by even the most fundamental Christians (such as “You shall never vex a stranger” – something most of us are guilty of on the Hotblog on a daily basis).
Of the actual list brought down from Mt Sinai by Moses, while the Bible explicitly says there are 10 the text contains 14 or 15. Depending on the translation and religion, the “extra” commandments will be lumped together (for example, Talmudic tradition groups “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife” with “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s property”, while Catholic tradition groups “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” with “Thou shalt not make any graven images”).
“Seriously, not all of the ten commandments are relevant any more…for example, when was the last time anybody other than an Orthodox Jew kept holy the Sabbath Day?”
Luke, there’s actually a nascent, quasi-secular sabbatarian movement out there. It’s basically a rehash of the usual Luddism, but it does at least show how persistent anti-modernism. These morons would have fit right in in the 1770s. Or was that the 1830s? Or the 1890? The 1910s? 1960s? Oh, I give up.
http://www.sabbathmanifesto.org/
Based on the above comments, David is the only deontologist here. The rest seem to be consequentialists.
I used to follow Ebert’s website more regularly than I do now, but it seemed like every time he had an interview with a filmmaker that went up a day or two before he reviewed the film, the film always got a 3 to 4 star rating. It was clockwork.
But I don’t think it was about set visits or ethics or anything like that. For movies, I think if you talk to the director and get a sense of what the movie is that they tried to make, you see it in a whole different light, than if you walked in without any reference.
There’s probably some selection bias there, too, as Ebert would be more likely to interview a director if he knows and likes that director’s films. Interviews and positive reviews are probably correlative, not causative.
Pauline Kael should have been fired the second she befriended Warren Beatty and James Toback and later reviewed their films. A stain on the New Yorker.
This is a bit of an over-simplification but Christians weren
Every time a director ever comes up to me and says “Thank you for the good review,” I tell him/her “Remember this moment if I ever give you a bad one.”